Hi everyone!
In the sources of Wikibase I see Ask library from which I conclude that we will have awesome SMW-like queries. Am I right? What is the status of query features and how will the queries look like when they are ready?
----- Yury Katkov
Hey Yury,
We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata.
People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that.
This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3
Well they can ask.....
As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'?
Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come!
At least that is my understanding.
Joe
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroendedauw@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Yury,
We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata.
People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that.
This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote:
Well they can ask.....
As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'?
Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants.
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-).
Markus
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come!
At least that is my understanding.
Joe
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
L. Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" markus@semantic-mediawiki.org ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote:
Well they can ask.....
As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'?
Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants.
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-).
Markus
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come!
At least that is my understanding.
Joe
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Similar case: For czech "towns" we have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15978299
JAnD
2014-06-10 11:11 GMT+02:00 Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.com:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
L.
Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask..... As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants. The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit classes by country City Of London | City of the UK | Type of administrative unit of the UK Lorraine | French Region | Type of administrative unit of France
Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This seem close to your ''helper item'' model.
2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org:
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
L.
Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask..... As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants. The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether thatwas true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible todrill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder.To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, Important to recognise is that there can be as many layers as are needed.. ie a roller coaster can be in a park, a park can be in a settlement, a settlement in a municipality, a municipality in a county, a county in a province, a province in a state and finally a state in a country (that is on a continent)...
This is how it effectively is already in Wikidata for many "locations" Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 09:48, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit classes by country City Of London | City of the UK | Type of administrative unit of the UK Lorraine | French Region | Type of administrative unit of France
Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This seem close to your ''helper item'' model.
2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org :
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
L.
Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask..... As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants. The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether thatwas true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible todrill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual querybuilder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi, Gerard, I don't understand, As needed for what ? In your example it is enough to retrieve all the territorial entities a location is in.
But let's say I want to get the administrative territorial organisation of France (Wikipedias probably ), I mean like "france is divided in regions, regions are divided in departments, and so on), for example, do we have enough in your model ?
I propose to add to the classes like <French Region> for example an "instance of" claim that states <French Region> instance of <French administrative division type> to reflect that in Wikidata.
Then if I want to know how france is administratively divided, I query all the instances in that class.
This is a complement to <Pays de la Loire> instance of <French region> for example.
2014-06-11 10:37 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Important to recognise is that there can be as many layers as are needed.. ie a roller coaster can be in a park, a park can be in a settlement, a settlement in a municipality, a municipality in a county, a county in a province, a province in a state and finally a state in a country (that is on a continent)...
This is how it effectively is already in Wikidata for many "locations" Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 09:48, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit classes by country City Of London | City of the UK | Type of administrative unit of the UK Lorraine | French Region | Type of administrative unit of France
Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This seem close to your ''helper item'' model.
2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org
:
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
L.
Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask..... As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants. The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whetherthat was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible todrill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual querybuilder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, A bot run by Amir has remedied many of the issues that resulted from an import of data for the United States. The fix was to only point to one level up and not have a reference to the state from every location. It is implicitly there.. in the final analysis we do not need to know in what country something is as it can be inferred.
This system assumes that we build the upper layers as is relevant to a specific country,. So yes it is usable for any country, type of administrative or territorial entity including how for instance the Roman Catholic church does its thing. Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 11:08, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Gerard, I don't understand, As needed for what ? In your example it is enough to retrieve all the territorial entities a location is in.
But let's say I want to get the administrative territorial organisation of France (Wikipedias probably ), I mean like "france is divided in regions, regions are divided in departments, and so on), for example, do we have enough in your model ?
I propose to add to the classes like <French Region> for example an "instance of" claim that states <French Region> instance of <French administrative division type> to reflect that in Wikidata.
Then if I want to know how france is administratively divided, I query all the instances in that class.
This is a complement to <Pays de la Loire> instance of <French region> for example.
2014-06-11 10:37 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
Important to recognise is that there can be as many layers as are needed.. ie a roller coaster can be in a park, a park can be in a settlement, a settlement in a municipality, a municipality in a county, a county in a province, a province in a state and finally a state in a country (that is on a continent)...
This is how it effectively is already in Wikidata for many "locations" Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 09:48, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit classes by country City Of London | City of the UK | Type of administrative unit of the UK Lorraine | French Region | Type of administrative unit of France
Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This seem close to your ''helper item'' model.
2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>:
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
L.
Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask..... As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legalstatuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants.
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements withmore than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-).
Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia orthe Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible todrill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities willrepresent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that.
This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual querybuilder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
There is always special cases that needs special treatments, inference is done again and again, there is no point to recompute everything with an algorithm or a query with hard coded exceptions when we have a simple and regular system who can handle and put the exceptions in the datas.
Class of classes is such a system. I'll quote the python programming language motto here "explicit is better than implicit", which is not really different from "avoid redundances at all cost is not always a good thing".
The same reason we have classes in the first time, can also apply to classes of classes. Some class membership can be inferred by a query, I don't think it's always a bad idea to state the membership explicitely in all cases.
2014-06-11 11:21 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, A bot run by Amir has remedied many of the issues that resulted from an import of data for the United States. The fix was to only point to one level up and not have a reference to the state from every location. It is implicitly there.. in the final analysis we do not need to know in what country something is as it can be inferred.
This system assumes that we build the upper layers as is relevant to a specific country,. So yes it is usable for any country, type of administrative or territorial entity including how for instance the Roman Catholic church does its thing. Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 11:08, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Gerard, I don't understand, As needed for what ? In your example it is enough to retrieve all the territorial entities a location is in.
But let's say I want to get the administrative territorial organisation of France (Wikipedias probably ), I mean like "france is divided in regions, regions are divided in departments, and so on), for example, do we have enough in your model ?
I propose to add to the classes like <French Region> for example an "instance of" claim that states <French Region> instance of <French administrative division type> to reflect that in Wikidata.
Then if I want to know how france is administratively divided, I query all the instances in that class.
This is a complement to <Pays de la Loire> instance of <French region> for example.
2014-06-11 10:37 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
Important to recognise is that there can be as many layers as are needed.. ie a roller coaster can be in a park, a park can be in a settlement, a settlement in a municipality, a municipality in a county, a county in a province, a province in a state and finally a state in a country (that is on a continent)...
This is how it effectively is already in Wikidata for many "locations" Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 09:48, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit classes by country City Of London | City of the UK | Type of administrative unit of the UK Lorraine | French Region | Type of administrative unit of France
Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This seem close to your ''helper item'' model.
2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>:
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass of "city" and "UK administrative division", may we?
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
L.
Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto:
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask..... As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legalstatuses of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" have over 100k inhabitants.
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. Butdrawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements withmore than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-).
Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic'has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people.
This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasibleto drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it.
If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities willrepresent things such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that.
This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual querybuilder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future.
Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> _________________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, You lost me. What have classes to do with this?
The system is flexible and you assume that there are special cases... Name one and it can be fit in. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 June 2014 11:48, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
There is always special cases that needs special treatments, inference is done again and again, there is no point to recompute everything with an algorithm or a query with hard coded exceptions when we have a simple and regular system who can handle and put the exceptions in the datas.
Class of classes is such a system. I'll quote the python programming language motto here "explicit is better than implicit", which is not really different from "avoid redundances at all cost is not always a good thing".
The same reason we have classes in the first time, can also apply to classes of classes. Some class membership can be inferred by a query, I don't think it's always a bad idea to state the membership explicitely in all cases.
2014-06-11 11:21 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
A bot run by Amir has remedied many of the issues that resulted from an import of data for the United States. The fix was to only point to one level up and not have a reference to the state from every location. It is implicitly there.. in the final analysis we do not need to know in what country something is as it can be inferred.
This system assumes that we build the upper layers as is relevant to a specific country,. So yes it is usable for any country, type of administrative or territorial entity including how for instance the Roman Catholic church does its thing. Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 11:08, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Gerard, I don't understand, As needed for what ? In your example it is enough to retrieve all the territorial entities a location is in.
But let's say I want to get the administrative territorial organisation of France (Wikipedias probably ), I mean like "france is divided in regions, regions are divided in departments, and so on), for example, do we have enough in your model ?
I propose to add to the classes like <French Region> for example an "instance of" claim that states <French Region> instance of <French administrative division type> to reflect that in Wikidata.
Then if I want to know how france is administratively divided, I query all the instances in that class.
This is a complement to <Pays de la Loire> instance of <French region> for example.
2014-06-11 10:37 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
Important to recognise is that there can be as many layers as are needed.. ie a roller coaster can be in a park, a park can be in a settlement, a settlement in a municipality, a municipality in a county, a county in a province, a province in a state and finally a state in a country (that is on a continent)...
This is how it effectively is already in Wikidata for many "locations" Thanks, Gerard
On 11 June 2014 09:48, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit classes by country City Of London | City of the UK | Type of administrative unit of the UK Lorraine | French Region | Type of administrative unit of France
Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This seem close to your ''helper item'' model.
2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>:
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote:
> We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", > subclass of > "city" and "UK administrative division", may we? >
Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest.
Markus
> L. > > Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" < > markus@semantic-mediawiki.org > mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> ha scritto: > > > On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > > Well they can ask..... > > As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the > limits of > each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The > population > of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only > 7,375! > Should we > change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? > > > Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal > statuses > of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers > to. > There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but > it is > not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, > this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" > have > over 100k inhabitants. > > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent > human > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the > vagueness > of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good > class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded > city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that > something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But > drawing > the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, > and > will probably never be done uniformly across the data. > > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with > more > than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that > (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). > > Markus > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City > > > > Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' > has > problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or > the > Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude > these the > query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an > item > is 'in > the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether > that was > true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. > > This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to > point out > that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are > going to > have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible > to drill > down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the > data is > there, > open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of > a > letting > loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. > > If we build it they will come! > > At least that is my understanding. > > Joe > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw > <jeroendedauw@gmail.com mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com > mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com > mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com__>> wrote: > > Hey Yury, > > We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for > Wikidata. > > People will be able to define queries on dedicated query > pages that > contain a query entity. These query entities will > represent > things > such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". > People will > then be able to access the result for those queries via > the > web API > and be able to embed different views on them into wiki > pages. These > views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might > indeed be > able to share code between the two projects for that. > > This functionality is still some way off though. We > still > need to do > a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query > builder. To > already get something out to the users, we plan to > enable more > simple queries via the web API in the near future. > > Cheers > > -- > Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com > Software craftsmanship advocate > Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany > ~=[,,_,,]:3 > > _________________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > _________________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _________________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikidata-l@lists. wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to
use
in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done
uniformly
across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I
think
is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to
use
in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the
UK
(Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between
"village",
"city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done
uniformly
across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more
than
100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I
think
is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi,
I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them.
Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class
to use
in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the
UK
(Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between
"village",
"city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done
uniformly
across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more
than
100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I
think
is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi Gerard,
I think we should not aim for a "perfect" system, just for "a better one". In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly.
"Part of" is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness.
Thanks, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them.
Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class
to use
in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in
the UK
(Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between
"village",
"city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done
uniformly
across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more
than
100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I
think
is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, it is relevant to compare "settlements" in whatever country they are. A British "city" is always located in the United Kingdom and even more precise it is "in the administrative unit of" a county or whatever. When it is a city for historical reasons, this can be indicated with a qualifier.
In this way it is "is a" "settlement" and the rest can be deduced. Having specific types of settlements for countries is imho not necessary in this way. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 22:14, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
I think we should not aim for a "perfect" system, just for "a better one". In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly.
"Part of" is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness.
Thanks, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them.
Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray < andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class
to use
in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in
the UK
(Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between
"village",
"city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done
uniformly
across the data.
Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more
than
100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which
I think
is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Gerard, Normally users don't want information about human settlements, but about municipalities, which may contain several human settlements. Ideally we should have both and let the user decide what to look for.
Thanks, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, it is relevant to compare "settlements" in whatever country they are. A British "city" is always located in the United Kingdom and even more precise it is "in the administrative unit of" a county or whatever. When it is a city for historical reasons, this can be indicated with a qualifier.
In this way it is "is a" "settlement" and the rest can be deduced. Having specific types of settlements for countries is imho not necessary in this way. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 22:14, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
I think we should not aim for a "perfect" system, just for "a better one". In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly.
"Part of" is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness.
Thanks, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them.
Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire <filceolaire@gmail.com
wrote:
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray < andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
> The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of > "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to use > in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK > (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human > settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between "village", > "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly > across the data. > > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than > 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think > is basically what you also are saying below :-).
OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-)
I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of 'human settlement'" instead..."
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, A settlement is "in the administrative territorial entity" of something higher up.. That could be the municipality. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 June 2014 08:35, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, Normally users don't want information about human settlements, but about municipalities, which may contain several human settlements. Ideally we should have both and let the user decide what to look for.
Thanks, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, it is relevant to compare "settlements" in whatever country they are. A British "city" is always located in the United Kingdom and even more precise it is "in the administrative unit of" a county or whatever. When it is a city for historical reasons, this can be indicated with a qualifier.
In this way it is "is a" "settlement" and the rest can be deduced. Having specific types of settlements for countries is imho not necessary in this way. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 22:14, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
I think we should not aim for a "perfect" system, just for "a better one". In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly.
"Part of" is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness.
Thanks, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them.
Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire < filceolaire@gmail.com> wrote:
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include.
A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed).
When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor?
Joe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray < andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch < > markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > > > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human > > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness > of > > "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good > class to use > > in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in > the UK > > (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human > > settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between > "village", > > "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done > uniformly > > across the data. > > > > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with > more than > > 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that > (which I think > > is basically what you also are saying below :-). > > OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling > something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that > everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious > bit is :-) > > I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know > this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have > disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search > based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of > 'human settlement'" instead..." > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l